Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child Abuse: An …...Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child...

Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child Abuse: An Online Training Program for Early

Childhood Professionals

Karl Kapp, Sarah Dore, Richard Fiene, Breanna Grable, Carlo Panlilio, Robert M. Hamm,

Chengwu Yang, Erik B. Lehman, Claudia Mincemoyer, Nicole Verdiglione, Benjamin H. Levi

"This article delineates the theory and framework for an innovative child abuse prevention

training program called 'iLookOut'. iLookOut is an online learning delivery system that utilizes

mastery learning and self-determination theory in the Core Training program, along with spaced

retrieval and retrieval practice in a follow-up micro-learning program that reinforces learning

from the Core Training. A cognitive mapping model provides the structure for documenting and

organizing the learning content in both the Core training and the follow-up micro-learning

program. The article provides a conceptual framework for designing and implementing more

effective and efficient online learning programs."

Introduction

There are relatively few studies of Early Care & Education (ECE) professionals’ child abuse

reporting practices, particularly compared with published studies on other mandated reporters

who have high levels of contact with children (e.g., teachers, nurses, doctors). In those that have

been done, ECE professionals less likely to have ever reported child maltreatment compared to

other professionals who work with children (Zellman & Bell, 1990); and that this was due in part

to the minimal education ECE professionals received about child abuse and what regarding the

level of concern and/or circumstances warrant reporting (Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin,

2004; Kenny, 2007; Carter, Bannon, Limbert, Docherty, & Barlow, 2006).

The small body of quantitative and qualitative research examining reporting experiences of ECEs

(including kindergarten and pre-school teachers (Sundell, 1997; Bishop, Lunn, & Johnson, 2002)

has revealed high levels of uncertainty about the decision to report, perceived “conflicts of

Cognitive Map for iLookOut

2

loyalty,” (Svensson & Janson, 2008) and complexities that, taken together, have caused some

ECE professionals to feel as if they are “dancing on the edge.”(Feng, Chen, Wilk, Yang &

Fetzer, 2009).

ECE professionals report wanting to preserve relationships with families and avoid causing

harm, but at the same time meet their legal, professional, and ethical responsibilities. One

consequence of such uncertainty and conflict is report latency, with one study finding an average

time of 14 months between ECE professionals having suspicion and making a report (Sundell,

1997) -- a situation that, if left unaddressed, risks dire outcomes for many young children.

The emergence of the internet and other technological advances provide a mechanism for

educating ECE professionals about child abuse and its reporting, even in remote areas. But

evidence-based curricula are lacking. This paper describes a methodology for crafting an

integrated curriculum that meets the needs of ECE professionals, and can be delivered via online

learning modalities.

The Need

Every day, thousands of children experience one form of child abuse or another at the hands of a

parent or other caregiver. Annually, there are 680,000 confirmed cases in the United States, and

research provides strong evidence that this number is likely much higher (Finkelor, Turner,

Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010; Hussey, Chang, & Kotch, 2006, Kohl, Jonson-Reid, & Drake, 2009;

Stoltenborgh, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn, & Alink, 2013; Stoltenborgh, van

Ijzendoorn, Euser, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011; Stoltenborgh, Bakermans-Kranenburg,


3

Alink, & van Ijzendoorn, 2012; Stoltenborgh, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Ijzendoorn, 2013;

Sedlak, Mettenburg, Basena, Peta, McPherson, & Greene, 2010).

The youngest children –those under 5 years of age– are more likely to be victims of all forms of

child abuse other than sexual abuse. Because they are more vulnerable, these children experience

serious injuries –including death– at much higher rates than older children. (, U.S. Department of

Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on

Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau 2018). However, not all consequences of

abuse are as immediate as broken bones and black eyes. Each of the various forms of abuse can

have profound effects on children’s physical, psychological, developmental, and overall

emotional well-being –with conclusive evidence of the strong relationship between child

maltreatment and subsequent anxiety, depression, substance use, intimate partner and family

violence, as well as heart disease, strokes, and cancer (Norman, Byambaa, De, Butchart, Scott, &

Vos, 2012, Flaherty et al., 2013; Jonson-Reid, Kohl, & Drake, 2012; Mills et al., 2011; Danese &

McEwen, 2012; Shonkoff & Garner, 2012; Hadland et al., 2015).

In the face of these staggering facts, it is perhaps surprising that ECE professionals –who provide

care to 8-12 million children in the U.S.– who are cared for by childcare providers (Laughlin,

2013; Laughlin, 2006) report only about half of 1% of confirmed cases of child abuse. (U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018)).

Because ECE professionals interact with so many young children on a daily basis, they are in a

unique position to identify and respond to suspected child abuse. They may be the only people

outside of a child’s immediate family to have extended opportunities to discern red flags and/or

subtle signs of abuse that might lead to early detection and the potential to help prevent patterns


4

of abuse from taking hold. With the right preparation and resources, ECE professionals can also

serve as key supports for children and families who are struggling (Dinehart, Katz, Manfra, &

Ullery, 2013). Yet this is a far from straight-forward or low stress task –to the extent that some

ECE professionals have identified “reporting possible abuse” as the most troubling ethical issue

they face in their workplace (Clyde & Rodd, 1989; Feeney & Sysko, 1986).

Two-Phased Approach

The iLookOut for Child Abuse learning program (iLookOut) has two distinct phases. The first is

the Core Training, which uses a video-based storyline, experiential learning theory, and practice

modules to provide ECE professionals a strong, standardized foundation for understanding what

child abuse is, what to look for, and what to do (and not do).

The second phase uses spaced practice and spaced retrieval to augment the original instruction

and provide continuing reinforcement delivered via a smart phone application. Such continual

reinforcement related to child abuse to allows ECE professionals to re-process/synthesize and

(most importantly) apply what they’ve learned about child abuse and what can be done to help

protect children and promote their well-being.

The second phase provides Advanced Training by sending out “pings” –so named because

micro-learning that requires a response from the learner. Has been likened to the sound waves

submarines send out to gauge their surroundings and their progress forward. Because iLookOut’s

pinging is iterative, and dispatches brief messages over time, this micro-learning can be tailored

to the availability and needs of individual learners.


5

This paper describes iLookOut’s two phases, and explains how the distance learning curriculum

that is now deployed to ECE professionals across Maine (and soon-to-be Pennsylvania) can

serve as a model for others looking to deliver trainings and associated resources over broad

geographic regions, and then be able to reinforce that learning so it can fully take hold. In this

context, “Core Training” refers to the initial 3-hour iLookOut learning program, while

“Advanced Training” refers to the micro-learning activities sent out as pings to smart-phones or

other mobile technologies.

Core Training

Given the broad and dispersed population of ECE professionals in Maine, and the acute need for

mandated reporter training, we sought to create an online program that could be delivered to

ECE professionals where they worked. The iLookOut Core Training uses a video-based storyline

and game-based techniques to more effectively engage ECE professionals, along with pre/post-

testing to measure knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction.

Like other online programs. iLookOut’s Core Training provides ready, low-cost access to multi-

media learning 24/7, and can be paused/resumed as desired. iLookOut’s content is written at an

8th grade level, and provides standardized education for a workforce known for wide variability

in entry level training, skill-sets, work environment, and professional development opportunities.

Mastery Learning

We designed iLookOut’s Core Training to ensure that all ECE professionals could master basic

information about how to identify signs of child abuse. This mastery learning philosophy

recognizes that under appropriate instructional conditions virtually all learners can master what is


6

being taught (Block & Burns, 1976; Bloom, 1971). iLookOut’s Core Training creates those

conditions by organizing the curriculum into discrete units; providing interactive instructional

activities along with various didactic exercises and resource handouts; embedding assessments

within these activities; and requiring learners to master the learning objectives before moving to

the next discrete unit. (Bloom, 1971; Melton, 2008).

Mastery learning is an approach that recognizes that aptitude for learning may be more closely

linked to an individual’s perseverance and time spent than to any notion of “ability” (Bloom,

1971; Melton, 2008). As with criterion-referenced tests, which assess the performance of each

test-taker without regard to the performance of others (Shrock & Coscarelli, 2007), there is no

limit to the number of ECE professionals who can excel in completing the iLookOut curriculum.

Self-Determination Theory

Motivationally, iLookOut’s Core Training program is based on Self-Determination Theory

(SDT). This macro-theory which has been used to explain human motivation in many endeavors

(including sports, healthcare, religion, work, and education) posits that human beings primarily

perform tasks/activities because of an internal drive rather than some externally driven theory of

operant conditioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Among other things, SDT has

helped to identify factors that either facilitate or undermine human motivation. For example, one

of SDT’s sub-theories, cognitive valuation theory, proposes that events and conditions that

enhance a person’s sense of autonomy and competence intrinsically support motivation, while

factors that diminish perceived autonomy or competence undermine intrinsic motivation.

In the context of SDT, autonomy involves a person feeling that they are in control of their

actions, and can influence the outcome of those actions. To help foster this sense of autonomy,


7

the iLookOut Core Training provides ECE professionals with opportunities to make meaningful

choices in response to the scenarios playing out in the video-based storyline –particularly with

regard to possible signs of child abuse.

Another key aspect of SDT involves the human drive to take on challenges and achieve a sense

of mastery. SDT describes this as striving for competence, and posits that factors that enhance an

individual’s ability to experience competence (e.g., opportunities to acquire new skills or

overcome challenges) are intrinsically motivating. iLookOut’s Core Training provides ECE

professionals many such opportunities to be challenged, to demonstrate mastery, and to earn

digital badges that offer visible acknowledgement of their achievements.

iLookOut also incorporates SDT’s third major element, relatedness –the experience of feeling

meaningfully connected with others. iLookOut’s Core Training does this by helping ECE

professionals identify with being part of a profession and community that is united in its goal of

promoting children’s well-being.

Pinging and Advanced Training

Despite the many strengths of iLookOut’s Core Training, it is well established that gain in

knowledge are quickly lost unless they are somehow reinforced ( Murre & Dros, 2015). Because

decades of research show that spaced practice and spaced retrieval optimize learning (Ausubel,

& Youssef, 1965; Caple, 1996; Kerfoot, 2010), we designed iLookOut to include interactive

micro-learning activities that are sent to learner’s smart-phones. These pings serve to reinforce

and augment the concepts that were originally taught in the Core training.

Spaced Retrieval


8

Broadly speaking, the concept of spaced retrieval involves providing learners with course

content spaced over time. Spaced retrieval has been shown to be an effective tool for aiding

student retention (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005), and has been more widely promoted through

computer-based adaptive instructional models such as ALEKS (Doignon & Falmagne, 1985) and

LearnSmart (McGraw-Hill, 2013). In contrast to the standard practice of asking learners to

digest large amounts of content all at one time, spaced retrieval avoids learner fatigue, as well as

setting unrealistic expectations. For iLookOut’s Advanced Training phase, spaced retrieval also

allows learners time to process and reflect on new information at multiple points in time, rather

than simply moving on.

Spaced retrieval helps learners retain access to memorized information over long periods of time

because the spacing promotes deeper processing of the learned material. Ideally, the time

between the learning events is greater than 24 hours, but shorter times have also been found to be

effective. As long as eight years after an initial training, learners who engaged in spaced retrieval

exercises showed better retention than those whose learning was more concentrated time period

(Clark & Mayer, 2011).

iLookOut’s Advanced Training sends participants weekly pings, each constituting a learning

module that includes an activity (reading, game, video, etc.) along with various question-items.

Learners must complete the modules in succession, and may review their content after

completion; but learners may not proceed to the next module until its predetermined release date.

Successful completion of a set number of modules ultimately earns learners a badge.

Retrieval Practice


9

By design, our use of retrieval practice requires ECE professionals to recall or retrieve

information they have learned, and complete both “knowledge checks” and in-practice exercises

that provide opportunities to apply newly acquired knowledge. The benefits of retrieval practice

are well-established across diverse groups (Larsen et al., 2009). But the advent of computer

technology has added the ability to not only record learner responses and performance, but also

standardize and formally integrate spaced practice into learning curricula.

Retrieval practice improves recall performance in part because the act of retrieving information

from memory actually strengthens the existing memory trace, and often creates additional

retrieval routes(Dobson, 2013). Because these changes increase the probability of successful

retrieval in the future (Roediger & Butler, 2013), retrieval practice can significantly enhance

long-term retention of what ECE professionals have learned.

Despite the known efficxacy of spaced practice and retrieval practice, it was not obvious how

best to apply them vis-à-vis iLookOut’s overall curriculum. To develop a systematic approach for

doing so –i.e., to determine the appropriate sequencing and content for Phase 2 of iLookOut–we

adopted a “Cognitive Mapping” approach to design a comprehensive pinging curriculum.

Cognitive Mapping

Cognitive Mapping was first introduced in 1948 by educational psychologist, Edward Tolman

(Tolman, 1948) to explain how rats learned the locations of rewards in a maze, and as such

generated a practical model for mapping their environment. Cognitive mapping is now in wide

use in many different venues (including health research (Stadler, et al, 2013) and engineering

(Dixon & Lammi, 2014)), not only to identify and illustrate how key elements are (or should be)


10

inter-related, but also to create strategies for integrating, measuring, and analyzing various

factors and outcome.

Cognitive mapping helps explore learner characteristics that improve learning (e.g., self-

regulated learning components of goal-directedness, motivation, goal feedback, etc.). One such

characteristic involves outcome expectations (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Rooted in

Tolman’s concept of field expectancies, a learner’s outcome expectations are based in their

ability to anticipate particular relationships between a (e.g., lightning) stimulus and a response

(e.g., thunder). Such expectancies help people form cognitive maps, which are internal

representations of these expectancies, along with a catalogue of actions that are more (or less)

likely to help individuals attain their goals.

Cognitive maps are particularly important for latent learning –i.e., learning that occurs after the

initial period of teaching/exploration/etc. Latent learning may occur at any number of points in

time, but may be most pronounced when the learner realizes how what has been taught applies in

real-world settings –which in the case of ECE professionals is likely to be when they are working

with infants and toddlers.

According to a Social Cognitive framework, learners will act in a manner they believe is likely to

be successful, and will adopt observational and behavioral frameworks that conduce to success.

As such, iLookOut’s cognitive map was designed to both 1) help our research team understand

the relations between the various components of the Core Training and the subsequent pings, and

2) create a prototype of the internal model we hoped our learners would develop over the course

of iLookOut’s two phases. In this way, the cognitive map developed for iLookOut provides a

template to help ECE professionals more effectively connect and integrate information, ways of


11

observing/interpreting, and particular practices so as to optimize and take full advantage of latent

learning.

By definition "cognitive maps” are mental or conceptual models, “thinking maps” that like other

forms of cartography map territory. But here it is cognitive “territory” rather than geographic

terrain that is being characterized. Sometimes, cognitive maps provide a linear progression of a

concept, or the relationships between various factors. But they also can serve a developmental

purpose, helping people (be they researchers, policy makers, teachers, or learners) develop a

deeper understanding of how different elements are (or should be) related to one another.

There are many applications of cognitive maps. Perceptual applications tend to focus on a)

inquiring and/or gathering information; b) noticing/attending to; or c)

differentiating/distinguishing. Cognitive applications tend to focus on a. organizing data and/or

finding patterns/relationships; b) interpreting/understanding data; c) analyzing data; d)

troubleshooting/diagnosing; e) drawing conclusions; f) framing; g) illuminating; or h) estimating

probability/confidence levels. Evaluative applications focus on a) assessing/judging; b)

measuring effectiveness; c) predicting future success; d) assigning importance/priority; or e)

providing feedback. Volitional applications include a) identifying desires; b) defining/clarifying

purposes; or c) planning. Behavioral applications include a) performing/behaving; b)

implementing a plan; c) communicating; d) learning; e) improving skills; or f) developing.

Of these iLookOut’s cognitive map was developed for the following purposes: coordinating

learning content (Core Training and Adanced Training), implementing a plan, predicting

likelihood and degree of future success, providing feedback, monitoring and measuring progress,

evaluating and assessing achievement, organizing data, and finding patterns. This allowed us to

both fully align existing content, strategies, and outcomes, and also identify critical areas that


12

were not sufficiently fleshed out or appropriately integrated. For iLookOut’s Advanced Training

in particular, this involved 1) distinguishing the learning points for the different concepts; 2)

demonstrating associations between various components; 3) mapping individuals’ actual

progress through different stages of learning; 4) clarifying the purposes of various components of

the learning program; and 5) creating a framework for how learners will progress through

various activities so as to develop their skills.

Figure 1 provides a very simplified cognitive map showing how key elements from iLookOut’s

Core Training and Advanced Training fit together to create a unified whole. Such integration is

crucial because any misalignment could potentially confuse or demotivate learners, fail to

leverage spaced retrieval/practice, and/or undermine latent learning.

Figure 1. Simplified Overview Cognitive Map

Core Training:

Advanced Training:

Figure 2 provides more detailed mapping of the Core Training, showing where and how learning

objectives manifest in the storyline, discrete learning modules, and post-training knowledge tests.

iLookOut

Script

Measuring

Knowledge

and

Attitudes

Learning Modules

with interactive

content

Measuring

Knowledge ,

Attitudes, and

(self-reported)

Behavior

Learning

Modules

Learning

Objective

s

Pings


13

Figure 2. Sample Cognitive Map for Core Training


14

Figure 3 provides a more detailed mapping of a portion of the Advanced Training, corresponding

to the learning content in Figure 2. In addition to listing the topic and content for each week’s

pings, this cognitive map shows the kind of activity and teaching modality learner will

experience.

Figure 3. Sample Cognitive Map for Advanced Training


15

Discussion

The mapping process was critical for ensuring that key learning objectives were aligned with

both content and teaching modalities, and that concepts and educational activities were

appropriately sequenced to support the developmental goals of iLookOut. This cognitive

mapping also helped ensure consistency, cohesiveness, and alignment of the Core and Advanced

Trainings.

The use of cognitive mapping is not common in a non-academic settings. Yet as described in this

paper, this process can have great value for developing conceptually rich and well-integrated

training programs, particularly for those wishing to leverage the power of spaced retrieval and

spaced practice. This can be particularly valuable for topics like child abuse that are both

contextually nuanced and emotionally complex. As such, this description of iLookOut is

presented as a prototype that other researchers, designers, and developers of curricula may wish

to consider and improve upon.


16

References

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Child Maltreatment 2012.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families;2013.

Al-Azawi, R., Al-Faliti, F., & Al-Blushi, M. (2016). Educational gamification vs. game based

learning: Comparative study. International Journal of Innovation, Management, and Technology,

7(4), 132-136.

Alvarez KM, Kenny MC, Donohue B, Carpin KM. Why are professionals failing to initiate

mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any empirically based training programs to

assist professionals in the reporting process? Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2004;9(5):563-

578.

Ausubel, D.P., & Youssef, M. (1965). The effect of spaced repetition on meaningful retention.

Journal of General Psychology, 73, 147-150.

Bishop A, Lunn P, Johnson K. ‘I would just like to run away and hide, but I won't!’ Exploring

attitudes and perceptions on child protection issues with early years teacher trainees on the

threshold of their careers. Westminster Studies in Education. 2002;25(2):187-199.

Blair, L. (2012). Congratulations! Selecting the right in -game achievements. In K. M. Kapp

(Ed.), The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for

training and education (pp. 219-238). New York, NY: Pfeiffer.

Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. Review of Research in Education, 4, 3-49.

Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and

practice (pp. 47-63). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Caple, C. (1996). The effects of spaced practice and spaced review on recall and retention using

computer assisted instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Calder, J. (June 2000). Beauty Lies in the Eye of the Beholder. International Review of Research

in Open and Distance Learning, 1 (1), [Online]. Available at: http://

www.irrodl.org/content/v1.1/judith.pdf.

Carpenter S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name

learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 619–636.

Carter YH, Bannon MJ, Limbert C, Docherty A, Barlow J. Improving child protection: A

systematic review of training and procedural interventions. Archives of Disease in Childhood.

2006;91(9):740-743.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines

for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Clyde M, Rodd J. Professional ethics: There's more to it than meets the eye! Early Child

Development and Care. 1989;53(1):1-12.

Chugh, R., Ledger, S., & Shields, R. (2017) Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-

TOJDE April 2017 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 18 Number: 2 Article 1.


17

Danese A, McEwen BS. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-

related disease. Physiology & behavior. 2012;106(1):29-39.

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011, May). Gamification: Toward a

definition. In Proceedings of CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop, (pp. 1-4). Vancouver, BC,

Canada.

Dinehart LH, Katz LF, Manfra L, Ullery MA. Providing quality early care and education to

young children who experience maltreatment: A review of the literature. Early Childhood

Education Journal. 2013;41(4):283-290.

Dixon & Lammi (2014). Cognitive Mapping Techniques: Implications for Research in

Engineering and Technology Education, Journal of Technology Education, Volume 25, Number

2, 1-11.

Dobson, J. L. (2013). Retrieval practice is an efficient method of enhancing the retention of

anatomy and physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 37, 184-191.

doi:10.1152/advan.00174.2012

Doignon, J. P., & Falmagne, J. C. (1985). Spaces for the assessment of knowledge. International

Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 175-196.

Dominguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., and Martinez-Herraiz, J.

(2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers and

Education, 63, 380-392.

Murre JM & Dros J. Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve. PloS One. 2015;10(7):E0120644.

Feeney S, Sysko L. Professional ethics in early-childhood education - Survey results. Young

Children. 1986;42(1):15-20.

Jui-Ying Feng, Shu-Jung Chen, Nancy C. Wilk, Wan-Ping Yang, Susan Fetzer. Kindergarten

teachers' experience of reporting child abuse in Taiwan: Dancing on the edge. Children and

Youth Services Review. 2009; 31 (3):405-409.

Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby SL. Trends in childhood violence and abuse exposure

evidence from 2 national surveys. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

2010;164(3):238-242.

Flaherty E.G., Thompson R., Dubowitz H., Harvey E. M., English D. J., Everson M. D., Proctor

L, & Runyan D.K. Adverse childhood experiences and child health in early adolescence. JAMA

Pediatrics. 2013;167(7):622-629.

Hadland SE, Wood E, Dong H, Marshall B.D.L., Kerr T., Montaner J.S., & DeBeck K. Suicide

attempts and childhood maltreatment among street youth: A prospective cohort study. Pediatrics.

2015;136(3):440-449.

Huffman, S. (2018). The digital divide revisited: what is next?. Education, (3), 239.

Hussey JM, Chang JJ, Kotch JB. Child maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, risk

factors, and adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):933-942.


18

Information for Parents. (2018). Retrieved August 3, 2018, from

https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ocfs/ec/occhs/infoparents.htm

Jonson-Reid M, Kohl PL, Drake B. Child and adult outcomes of chronic child maltreatment.

Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):839-845.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and

strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer.

Kenny MC. Web-based training in child maltreatment for future mandated reporters. Child

Abuse & Neglect. 2007;31(6):671-678.

Kerfoot, D.P., Fu, Y., Baker, H., Connelly, D. Ritchery, M. L., & Genega, E. M. (2010), Online

spaced education generates transfer and improves long-term retention of diagnostic skills: a

randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 211, 3, 332-337.

Kohl PL, Jonson-Reid M, Drake B. Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a

national probability study. Child Maltreatment. 2009;14(1):17-26.

Larsen, D. P., Butler A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Repeated testing improves long-term

retention relative to repeated study: A randomized controlled trial. Medical Education, 43, 1174–

1181. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x

Laughlin L. Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2005 and Summer 2006.

Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2010:P70-121.

Laughlin L. Who's minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Washington, DC:

US Census Bureau; 2013:P70-135.

McGraw-Hill. (2013) McGraw-Hill LearnSmart® Effectiveness Study. Retrieved from

http://learnsmartadvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/McGraw-Hill-LearnSmart-

Effectiveness-Study_June-2012-Update.pdf.

Melton, K. I. (2008). Using modified mastery assignments to increase learning in business

statistics. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 239-245.

Mills R, Alati R, O'Callaghan M, Najman JM, Wiliams GM, Bor W, Stathearn L. Child abuse

and neglect and cognitive function at 14 years of age: Findings from a birth cohort. Pediatrics.

2011;127(1):4-10.

Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017), The maturing of gamification research, Computers in

Human Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.062

Norman RE, Byambaa M, De R, Butchart A, Scott J, Vos T. The long-term health consequences

of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Plos Medicine. 2012;9(11).

Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K. & Mandl, H. (2017) How gamification motivates: An

experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need

satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 69 371-380.

Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2013). Retrieval practice (testing) effect. In H. L. Pashler (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of the mind (pp. 660-661). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing Co.

https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ocfs/ec/occhs/infoparents.htm

http://learnsmartadvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/McGraw-Hill-LearnSmart-Effectiveness-Study_June-2012-Update.pdf

http://learnsmartadvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/McGraw-Hill-LearnSmart-Effectiveness-Study_June-2012-Update.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.062


19

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinisic motivations: Classic definitions and

new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R.M., Rigby, C.S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self

determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–364.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the

means and ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology

(2nd ed., pp. 349–367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sedlak AJ, Mettenburg J, Basena M, Peta I, McPherson K, Greene A. Fourth national incidence

study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress, Executive Summary. Washington,

DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010.

Shonkoff JP, Garner AS, The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health,

Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental

and Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress.

Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):E232-E246.

Shrock, S. A., & Coscarelli, W. C. (2007). Criterion-referenced test development: Technical and

legal guidelines for corporate training (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Stadler, Dugmore, Venables, MacPhail, Delany-Moretlwe (2013). Cognitive mapping: using

local knowledge for planning health research, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13:96.

Stoltenborgh M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Alink LR, van Ijzendoorn MH. The universality of

childhood emotional abuse: A meta-analysis of worldwide prevalence. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma. 2012;21(8):870-890.

Stoltenborgh M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH. The neglect of child neglect: a

metaanalytic review of the prevalence of neglect. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric

Epidemiology. 2013;48(3):345-355.

Stoltenborgh M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH, Alink LR. Cultural–

geographical differences in the occurrence of child physical abuse? A meta-analysis of global

prevalence. International Journal of Psychology. 2013;48(2):81-94.

Stoltenborgh M, van Ijzendoorn MH, Euser EM, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. A global

perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child

Maltreatment. 2011;16(2):79-101.

Sundell K. Child-care personnel's failure to report child maltreatment: Some Swedish evidence.

Child Abuse & Neglect. 1997;21(1):93-105.

Svensson B, Janson S. Suspected child maltreatment: Preschool staff in a conflict of loyalty.

Early Childhood Education Journal. 2008;36(1):25-31.

Tolman E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.


20

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018). Child maltreatment

2016. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-

research/child-maltreatment.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your

business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple

versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 236-250.

Zellman GL, Bell RM. The role of professional background, case characteristics, and protective

agency response in mandated child abuse reporting. RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA; 1990.

Members of the iLookOut Research Team, College of Medicine, Penn State Hershey:

Carlomagno Panlilio, PhD 1; Chengwu Yang, MD PhD 2; Nicole Verdiglione 1; Claudia

Mincemoyer 1; Sarah Dore 1; Breanna Grable 1; Richard Fiene, PhD 1; Erik Lehman 1;

Robert M. Hamm, PhD 3; Benjamin Levi, MD PhD 1; Karl Kapp, EdD 4.

(1 Penn State; 2 New York University; 3 University of Oklahoma; 4 Bloomsburg University).

Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child Abuse: An …...Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child...

Documents

Transcript of Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child Abuse: An …...Cognitive Mapping for iLookOut for Child...